You're right. The first one is impossible to blend within a regular, comfortable viewing distance. Extreme 3D. The second shot, though it needs to be focused to enjoy each layer, is very strong 3D and looks great.
Pity the poor studio executives in the age of 3-D. They have learned just enough of stereo technique to be dangerous. From a hastily assembled, now half-remembered seminar a few years back, or perhaps from a dusty old book still living in a bottom drawer, they have learned one basic principle, that parallax values ought to be kept low-- less than or equal to the average human interocular, even on the very largest screens. But they have elevated this guiding principle to the status of inviolable law; they are not prepared to question it, let alone put its validity to the test.
Total screen parallax is the sum of negative parallax plus positive parallax. For the studio executive, and for the director and producer, one sure way to decrease overall parallax is to cut it in half. Where there be no off-the-screen effects, total parallax in many latter-day films ranges from zero to 65 millimeters, no more. The "deep window" 3-D that sometimes results can be very lovely, but is more often the visual equivalent of bland porridge.
We who buy movie tickets in this day and age are paying top sirloin prices, not porridge, and this current state of affairs must somehow be brought to an end.
Pity also the average moviegoer. They have never heard of Spottiswoode or Lipton or Norling or Rule. They could not tell you the difference between negative parallax and positive, and although they may vaguely remember something about Cartesian coordinates from school, they do not know from z-axis. Such things may as well be Greek.
What moviegoers do know, if ever they consciously think about it, is that in their everyday lives, their natural sense of stereo is often sharpest and most dramatic at close range-- within ten or 20 feet. And what they most certainly know is that, in most modern cinemas, they will be seated 20, 30, even 40 feet away from the screen. They will have paid an inexplicable upcharge to see films that purport to replicate the dynamic experience of two-eyed sight, but the experience is lacking: the makers pull their punches; all that action plays out not even at arm's length, but far beyond. It is no great thrill to watch either pageantry or carnage through a distant window.
Neither the studio executive nor the average moviegoer has learned something we vintage 3-D hounds sometimes take for granted: Not every off-the-screen effect has to be a silly gimmick. Paddle balls, fiery arrows, and floating beer trays all have their place, make no mistake, but it is possible to bring the action off the screen and into theater space without provoking howls of derision. And there are benefits to doing so, clear benefits to the DP and the technical crew with regards to increased parallax budget, which benefits we can explain and analyze in future installments.
For now, let me call your attention to Figure A, one of my very favorite images from the entire canon of Golden Age stereoscopic cinema, from one my very favorite 3-D films of all time, MISS SADIE THOMPSON.
Note that the action is presented on four distinct planes. In the far deep, the mountains of Hawaii. Next, a young Charles Bronson, with just a bit of positive parallax placing him inside the screen. Then, Henry Slate and the beautiful Rita Hayworth, standing in the very plane of the screen. And last of all, standing in the same room with us, just beyond our grasp, the wonderful Aldo Ray.
This is not a gimmick shot. It does not call any special attention to itself, apart from being simply gorgeous. Personal evidence, purely anecdotal, suggests that some moviegoers are not consciously aware the screen has been transgressed in this instance. But this stands as just one example of how the filmmakers of the 1950s, professionals with years of hard-won experience, were quite willing to test the limitations of the screen itself, and in so doing explore the frontiers of this remarkable new medium, the stereo cinema.
This is what I have come to call the casual negative. Perhaps we can think of a better name together.
Far point +76/1920
Near point -24/1920
Total parallax 100/1920
PLEASE NOTE: Just this once, I am breaking with my usual policy. This is a color anaglyph, not black and white. The reader is reminded that the original film is in full color, and is meant to be presented through polarizing glasses, not red and cyan. My anaglyph conversion is for illustration purposes only.
Casual Negative Parallax as you call it basically improves the illusion of depth on the screen by bringing objects into the theater space. The eyes of the audience won't even know they are watching objects coming out of the screen if the shot is composed the right way.
Total screen parallax is the sum of negative parallax plus positive parallax. For the studio executive, and for the director and producer, one sure way to decrease overall parallax is to cut it in half. Where there be no off-the-screen effects, total parallax in many latter-day films ranges from zero to 65 millimeters, no more. The "deep window" 3-D that sometimes results can be very lovely, but is more often the visual equivalent of bland porridge.
We who buy movie tickets in this day and age are paying top sirloin prices, not porridge, and this current state of affairs must somehow be brought to an end.
Pity also the average moviegoer. They have never heard of Spottiswoode or Lipton or Norling or Rule. They could not tell you the difference between negative parallax and positive, and although they may vaguely remember something about Cartesian coordinates from school, they do not know from z-axis. Such things may as well be Greek.
What moviegoers do know, if ever they consciously think about it, is that in their everyday lives, their natural sense of stereo is often sharpest and most dramatic at close range-- within ten or 20 feet. And what they most certainly know is that, in most modern cinemas, they will be seated 20, 30, even 40 feet away from the screen. They will have paid an inexplicable upcharge to see films that purport to replicate the dynamic experience of two-eyed sight. But the experience is lacking; the makers pull their punches; all that action plays out not even at arm's length, but far beyond. It is no great thrill to watch either pageantry or carnage through a distant window.
Thanks for the very detailed, informative 3D points you've made throughout this thread, Mike.
No big deal, but while the terms negative parallax and positive parallax are important to stereographers and diehard 3D fans looking for the most detailed, descriptive words for 3D, to most others, we think in terms of 3D going into the screen, level with or popping out of the screen. If I said to a friend, what did you think of the negative parallax in this new 3D movie, they'd look at me and "Say what?" Even though they're 3D fans, I'd probably never hear them talk in those terms, but I don't mind.
I absolutely agree. The average moviegoer will not know positive, zero or negative parallax. And of course, the average moviegoer may not know the difference between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, between CinemaScope and Panavision, between 35 and 70, or between 2K and 4K.
We here are the hardcore enthusiasts. We have read Spottiswoode, Lipton, et al., or at least portions, and we know the established terminology. We remember our Cartesian coordinates and we live on the z-axis!
Awesome post. Casual negative parallax in modern stereo cinema is probably used most in the top 3D conversions, like Stereo D's recent Marvel and Star Wars efforts. It's unfortunate that the depth of conversions is often sculpted better than modern native 3D (although there isn't much of that left anymore).
Last edited by BleedOrange11; 07-23-2017 at 05:54 AM.
[/font][/size]
Awesome post. Casual negative parallax in modern stereo cinema is probably used most in the top 3D conversions, like Stereo D's recent Marvel and Star Wars efforts. It's unfortunate that the depth of conversions is often sculpted better than modern native 3D (although there isn't much of that left anymore).
It is somewhat not surprising though. You have groups of people who what they do for a leaving is make 2d images into 3d ones (yes I know there is a lot more complexity to it, but that suffices for my point). On the other hand you have film makers who have been trained how to make 2d films, and every piece of experience they have reinforces that style.
Sure some break out and do stunning 3d despite this, but the issue is that it simply is going to take time for film makers to better understand how to use 3d. Whereas those doing the 3d conversions probably have less hammered in rules there mind wants to follow and thus have been quickly able to surpass most native shoots.
Remember we still have directors of large big budget films to be released in 3d stating they basically haven't seen much in 3d etc. To me that is shameful, and should be part of there preparation for figuring out how they want the film to look.
With that said the better conversions of the last few years are essentially what I like most out of 3d, and I find them even better uses of 3d then the stronger 50's use. Films like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Kong Skull Island, Jupiter Ascending, and so on, all hit it out of the park in terms of what I want out of 3d.
While I agree "casual negative parallax" is a very important and useful tool for 3D filmmaking, I'm not sure where you got the idea that it's fallen by the wayside. In my experience it's still extremely common in today's 3D movies. In fact, in a quick survey of my personal collection of 3D screenshots, literally the only movie where I didn't find this effect in use was The Last Airbender, where everything was behind the screen in every shot. And I don't think anyone should be using that movie as a benchmark for anything.
In all the other movies I looked at I found at least one or two examples just within my curated collections of twenty shots, usually more. I've attached many examples below.
I am very glad for your response, UFAlien (and all others as well).
I cannot fault you for thinking I have concluded that the casual negative condition has fallen by the wayside. I probably ought to have aimed for greater clarity in my writing instead of effect. But, if I may clarify here, I did not in fact say that it has disappeared altogether, and I did not say that creative filmmakers and film crews are unaware of it. It is still a part of the vocabulary of stereoscopic cinema, to be sure, but what I expect to show over the course of future posts is that the casual negative was far more prevalent in Golden Age and Silver Age 3-D than it is today, and its use was far more effective.
The frame grabs you share are very illustrative, and I appreciate your sharing them. I mean no disrespect to you personally--far, far from it--when I say, half-jokingly, that the examples you present make me wonder if parallax itself has fallen by the wayside!
Zivouhr, here's a few blind buy titles I highly recommend.
1) The Young and Prodigious TS Spivet (2013)
High-Medium to Strong natively shot 3-D. A very strange story about a high-functioning autistic child who invents a perpetual motion machine. You can buy a Region A version from DDDHouse.com for $14.10 USD.
IMO the best native 3-D stereography among modern titles (2005 to present). It'll give your TV a crosstalk workout. You can buy the Turkish region-free version from forum member Noirjunkie.
4) Tiny Giants (2014)
A short 40 minute BBC documentary featuring strong 3-D throughout. I can send you this one for free if you're interested. I have two copies, so I don't need both.
Zivouhr, here's a few blind buy titles I highly recommend.
1) The Young and Prodigious TS Spivet (2013)
High-Medium to Strong natively shot 3-D. A very strange story about a high-functioning autistic child who invents a perpetual motion machine. You can buy a Region A version from DDDHouse.com for $14.10 USD.
IMO the best native 3-D stereography among modern titles (2005 to present). It'll give your TV a crosstalk workout. You can buy the Turkish region-free version from forum member Noirjunkie.
4) Tiny Giants (2014)
A short 40 minute BBC documentary featuring strong 3-D throughout. I can send you this one for free if you're interested. I have two copies, so I don't need both.
How can a 3D production from the BBC only be available in U.S region A. We live in a mad world.
Also, Dark Country is DVD only. What the heck?
Yeah I desperately want to check out Dark Country.
I think the US blu of Tiny Giants is region free but the one on Amazon has a 'Region A' only warning on it, so I'm not sure if that's wrong or if its a Canadian version or something (which always seem to be region locked).
Yeah I desperately want to check out Dark Country.
I think the US blu of Tiny Giants is region free but the one on Amazon has a 'Region A' only warning on it, so I'm not sure if that's wrong or if its a Canadian version or something (which always seem to be region locked).
Thanks. I will investigate that.
Edit: Dark Country is available as a French region B Bluray 3D release with a English track.
Yeah I desperately want to check out Dark Country.
I think the US blu of Tiny Giants is region free but the one on Amazon has a 'Region A' only warning on it, so I'm not sure if that's wrong or if its a Canadian version or something (which always seem to be region locked).
Tiny Giants USA UPC# 883929-46558 is region free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steedeel
Dark Country is available as a French region B Bluray 3D release with a English track.
The region B locked French Blu-ray 3D version of Dark Country has forced French subtitles when the English audio track is chosen. The Turkish Blu-ray 3D version does not have forced subtitles and is region free.
I'd love to get a copy of Tiny Giants but I'm assuming you're referring to forum users in the US when it comes to sending one out revgen.
I was offering it to Zivouhr for review. Shipping it internationally means filling out customs forms. I'd prefer to just print a label and put it in my mailbox. But if nobody in the US wants it, I'll ship it to you. And it is region-free, so no worries.
The region B locked French Blu-ray 3D version of Dark Country has forced French subtitles when the English audio track is chosen. The Turkish Blu-ray 3D version does not have forced subtitles and is region free.
How would you rate the 3-D strength on DRAGONFLY SQUADRON?
IMO, I rate the movie a 10 out of 10, which is the strongest strength native 3D 1953 film rating I've experienced.
Even the beginning title credits pop-out into the room while the DragonFly Squadron flag flies at a good distance behind the lettering in the breeze.
The 3D imaging is extremely strong and both images are adjusted correctly for a natural comfort feel to watch. No ghosting observed at all in the film when displayed efficiently on an OLED E6P.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
) You should try to contact one directly.
Even though they're 3D fans, I'd probably never hear them talk in those terms, but I don't mind. 
Linear Mode
